Jordahl, Jr. v. Burrell, No. 15-6009 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDebtors appealed the bankruptcy court's confirming of their amended Chapter 13 plan. The court held that when a Chapter 13 debtor’s treatment of a creditor under one subsection of 11 U.S.C. 1322(b) falls within the contours of another subsection of that statute, all standards of both subsections must be satisfied. Specifically, the court examined whether the maintenance of regular payments for unsecured non-priority student loan debt by debtors in this case, while they paid substantially less to other unsecured non-priority debt, satisfied the requirements of Bankruptcy Code 1322(b)(1) and (b)(10). The court held that those requirements were not met. The court agreed with the bankruptcy court’s holding that debtors’ plan was unfairly discriminatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Schermer, Author, with Saladino and Nail, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel - Chapter 13. Requirements for compliance of provisions of 11 U.S.C. sec. 1322(b) require that when a Chapter 13 Debtor's treatment of a creditor under one subsection of section 1322(b) falls within the contours of another subsection of that statute, all standards of both subsections must be satisfied. Maintaining regular payments for unsecured non-priority student loan debt by the Debtors while paying substantially less to other unsecured non-priority debt does not comply with the requirements of sections 1322(b)(1) and (b)(10). Debtors' election to treat their student loan debt separately was unfairly discriminatory under section 1322(b)(1). The Debtors' proposed plan did not provide for did not full payment of all allowed claims and thus the proposed plan did not meet requirements of section 1322(b)(10). The bankruptcy court's decision is affirmed. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.